Papers by Daniel Wagner
Studia Gilsoniana, 2022
While the Catholic intellectual tradition upholds the uniqueness of humans, much contemporary sci... more While the Catholic intellectual tradition upholds the uniqueness of humans, much contemporary scientific research has come to the opposing conclusion that humans are not significantly different from other animals. To engage in robust dialogue around the question of human uniqueness, we utilize Aquinas’s model of disputatio to focus on an attribute of human beings that is unexplored in the literature–namely, the human capacity to garden–and address five scientific and philosophical objections to our position that the capacity to garden makes humans distinct. Engaging with various branches of science, we demonstrate that human capacities and modes of gardening are not only incrementally different, but also fundamentally different in kind, from those of nonhuman creatures. Philosophically, we utilize the power-object model of division and Aristotle’s categorization of knowledge to express the difference in kind between human beings and other animals. These responses allow us to set aside each major objection.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 2019
Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle’s says i... more Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle’s says in Posterior Analytics I.2 and Physics I.1 about how we obtain first principles of a science. At Posterior 71b35–72a6, Aristotle states that what is most universal (καθόλου) is better-known by nature and initially less-known to us, while the particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον) is initially better-known to us, but less-known by nature. At Physics 184a21-30, however, Aristotle states that we move from what is better-known to us, which is universal (καθόλου), to what is better-known absolutely, which is particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον). This paper turns to two of Aristotle’s most notable medieval commentators—Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas—to resolve this apparent contradiction. The key to Thomas and Albert’s solutions, we will argue, is a twofold distinction between a sense-perceptive and scientific universal, and the particulars as sensed individuals and as differentiating attributes. Our Synthetic treatment of these distinctions contributes to the ongoing scholarly effort to understand the Stagyrite’s complex theory of knowledge.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studia Gilsoniana, 2021
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle’s says i... more Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle’s says in Posterior Analytics I.2 and Physics I.1 about how we obtain first principles of a science. At Posterior 71b35–72a6, Aristotle states that what is most universal (καθόλου) is better-known by nature and initially less-known to us, while the particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον) is initially better-known to us, but less-known by nature. At Physics 184a21-30, however, Aristotle states that we move from what is better-known to us, which is universal (καθόλου), to what is better-known absolutely, which is particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον). This paper turns to two of Aristotle’s most notable medieval commentators—Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas—to resolve this apparent contradiction. The key to Thomas and Albert’s solutions, we will argue, is a twofold distinction between a sense-perceptive and scientific universal, and the particulars as sensed individuals and as differentiating attributes. Our Synthetic tre...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Articles by Daniel Wagner
Reality, 2024
While commentators on APo II.19 generally take note of Aristotle's break from Platonism in his ap... more While commentators on APo II.19 generally take note of Aristotle's break from Platonism in his approach to knowledge genesis, the fact that Aristotle's approach is yet Platonic goes unnoticed. At the same time, APo II.19 is treated as an incomplete, even embarrassing attempt by Aristotle to answer the question as to the ultimate source of the principles of science. This study exhibits the elegance and completeness of Aristotle's genetic account of the principles of science at APo II.19 precisely as an exercise of the Platonic method of division, providing an invaluable hermeneutic key for unlocking this extremely difficult and dense text and showing the developmental philosophical continuity that exists between Plato and his student, Aristotle.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studia Gilsoniana, 2022
While the Catholic intellectual tradition upholds the uniqueness of humans, much contemporary sci... more While the Catholic intellectual tradition upholds the uniqueness of humans, much contemporary scientific research has come to the opposing conclusion that humans are not significantly different from other animals. To engage in robust dialogue around the question of human uniqueness, we utilize Aquinas’s model of disputatio to focus on an attribute of human beings that is unexplored in the literature – namely, the human capacity to garden – and address five scientific and philosophical objections to our position that the capacity to garden makes humans distinct. Engaging with various branches of science, we demonstrate that human capacities and modes of gardening are not only incrementally different, but also fundamentally different in kind, from those of nonhuman creatures. Philosophically, we utilize the power-object model of division and Aristotle’s categorization of knowledge to express the difference in kind between human beings and other animals. These responses allow us to set aside each major objection.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Reality, Issue 1, Vol. 2, Spring 2022, 2022
This study presents St. Thomas Aquinas' groundbreaking treatment of the relation between God as C... more This study presents St. Thomas Aquinas' groundbreaking treatment of the relation between God as Creator and nature through the Aristotelian model of natural causation and the distinction between essentia and esse contra occasionalist conceptions of creation. By clearly distinguishing primary (divine) and secondary (natural) orders of causation, the Angelic Doctor champions Divine omnipotence while preserving the causal integrity of nature at one and the same time. His position on the relation of divine and natural causation in nature is formulated, in part, as a response to the occasionalist doctrine, denying natural causation. While Thomas shows that denying natural causation would actually vitiate divine omnipotence, this study extends his argument showing Aristotelian causation (secondary cause) is a necessary condition-i.e., one of the preambula fidei-for the Christian belief that God is the all-powerful creator of the natural world. This presentation and extension of St. Thomas Aquinas' critique of occasionalism is needed given a continuing trend among Anglo-American Analytic and Humean Christian philosophers to deny natural causation and hold that God is the only cause.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Philosophy and Canon Law, 2021
This is the second of a two-part study treating Karol Wojtyła’s Aristotelian methodology. Having ... more This is the second of a two-part study treating Karol Wojtyła’s Aristotelian methodology. Having presented Aristotle’s method of induction (ἐπαγωγή/epagoge) and analysis (ἀνάλῠσις/analusis) or division (διαίρεσις/diairesis) in Part I, Part II discloses the logical form and force of Wojtyła’s method of induction and reduction as Aristotelian induction and division. Looking primarily to the introduction to The Acting Person, it is shown that Wojtyła utilizes the logical forms of reductio ad impossibile and reasoning on the hypothesis of the end, or effect to cause reasoning, which is special to the life sciences and the power-object model of definition as set down by Aristotle. By use of this Aristotelian methodology, Wojtyła obtains definitive knowledge of the human person that is necessary and undeniable: he discloses the εἶδος (eidos) or species of the person in the Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Phenomenological sense of the term.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studia Gilsoniana, 2021
Jacques Maritain criticized Husserl’s phenomenological method—the ἔποχή—as being incompatible wit... more Jacques Maritain criticized Husserl’s phenomenological method—the ἔποχή—as being incompatible with the realism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Maritain equated phenomenology with idealism, holding that it universally negates the existence of known objects as things in the world. Not surprisingly, then, a tendency has arisen in the thought of Thomists commenting on Karol Wojtyła’s phenomenological-Thomism to distance Wojtyła’s method from that of Husserl. However, since Wojtyła himself saw fit to appropriate the phenomenological method, Thomists will do well to reevaluate Husserl’s ἔποχή. This study shows that Husserl’s phenomenology is formulated as an Aristotelian science, consciously presupposing the existence of its subject matter and not universally negating the existence of known objects as things in the world. The ἔποχή, thus, is compatible with the realism of the Angelic Doctor, and the phenomenological-Thomism of Karol Wojtyła stands on firm realist ground.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Philosophy and Canon Law, 2021
Ab s t r a c t: This is the first of a two-part study treating Karol Wojtyła's Aristotelian metho... more Ab s t r a c t: This is the first of a two-part study treating Karol Wojtyła's Aristotelian methodology. The study shows that Wojtyła's inductive and reductive methodology is identical with the Aristotelian method of proceeding from what is better-known to us in experience (ἐμπειρία/ empeiria) to what is better-known to nature by way of induction (ἐπαγωγή/epagoge) and analysis (ἀνάλῠσις/analusis) or division (διαίρεσις/diairesis). By a rigorous presentation of this Aristotelian methodology here in Part I, the logical form and force of Wojtyła's method is properly disclosed and appreciated in Part II. Wojtyła's method utilizes the logical forms of reductio ad impossibile and reasoning on the hypothesis of the end, or effect-cause reasoning, which is special to the life sciences and the power-object model of definition. By this methodology, Wojtyła obtains definitive knowledge of the human person that is necessary and undeniable: he discloses the εἶδος (eidos) or species of the person in the Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Phenomenological sense of the term.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 2019
Abstract: Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotl... more Abstract: Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle’s says in Posterior Analytics I.2 and Physics I.1 about how we obtain first principles of a science. At Posterior 71b35–72a6, Aristotle states that what is most universal (καθόλου) is better-known by nature and initially less- known to us, while the particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον) is initially better-known to us, but less-known by nature. At Physics 184a21-30, however, Aristotle states that we move from what is better-known to us, which is universal (καθόλου), to what is better-known absolutely, which is particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον). This paper turns to two of Aristotle’s most notable medieval commentators—Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas—to resolve this apparent contradiction. The key to Thomas and Albert’s solutions, we will argue, is a twofold distinction between a sense-perceptive and scientific universal, and the particulars as sensed individuals and as differentiating attributes. Our Synthetic treatment of these distinctions contributes to the ongoing scholarly effort to understand the Stagyrite’s complex theory of knowledge.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Reality, 2020
This first issue of Reality-The Philosophy of Realism-like most publications and especially those... more This first issue of Reality-The Philosophy of Realism-like most publications and especially those of a collaborative effort, signifies innumerable hours of effort. The goal of our journal is simple: to reinvigorate an intelligent discussion about realism as a philosophical approach. By a realist approach, we mean not simply as pertains to E d i t o r i a l I n t r o d u c t i o n-R e a l i t y a s K at h a r s i s 26 FEB 2020 2 COMMENTS
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
On the Foundational Compatibility of Phenomenology and Thomism, 2019
Jacques Maritain criticized Husserl's phenomenological method-the ἔποχή-as being incompatible wit... more Jacques Maritain criticized Husserl's phenomenological method-the ἔποχή-as being incompatible with the realism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Maritain equated phenomenology with idealism, holding that it universally negates the existence of known objects as things in the world. Not surprisingly, then, a tendency has arisen in the thought of Thomists commenting on Karol Wojtyła's phenomenological-Thomism to distance Wojtyła's method from that of Husserl. However, since Wojtyła himself saw fit to appropriate the phenomenological method, Thomists will do well to reevaluate Husserl's ἔποχή. This study shows that Husserl's phenomenology is formulated as an Aristotelian science, consciously presupposing the existence of its subject matter and not universally negating the existence of known objects as things in the world. The ἔποχή, thus, is compatible with the realism of the Angelic Doctor, and the Phenomenological-Thomism of Karol Wojtyła stands on firm realist ground.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Logical Terms of SenseRealism: A Thomistic-Aristotelian & Phenomenological Defense, 2019
At the heart of realist philosophy is the doctrine of univocal predication of definitions or the ... more At the heart of realist philosophy is the doctrine of univocal predication of definitions or the universal terms genus, species, and difference. This doctrine, first set down by Aristotle in the Categories, was famously rejected in the medieval period by William of Ockham. Ockham’s nominalism consisted in the claim that all that is common when a term is predicated of particular individuals is the term or name (nomen) and not essential meaning or nature. His position was accepted by virtually all the major modern philosophers, and still stands as one of the most formidable obstacles to realism. After giving a detailed textual presentation of Aristotle’s treatment of definition—the logical terms of sense- realism—in the Topics and Categories, this article offers a critical defense of the doctrine of univocal predication in two stages. First, by analysis of the phenomenon of predication as it is exercised in human language, it shown that the nominalist position is untenable by reductio ad impossibile: nominalism results in contradiction as human knowers do not predicate names and conceptual meaning unless they suppose the truth of the doctrine of univocal predication. Second, looking to key texts in Aristotle, and inspired by Avicenna and St. Thomas Aquinas, a plausible account of the identity between individuals and universal definitions is articulated, which avoids the major criticism of univocal predication offered by nominalists, i.e., that the doctrine reduces to contradiction in equating individuals and universals. Form provides a principle of identity between individuals and universal, as the same form can be conceived in two modes of existence: (i) in the individual and (ii) as a separated universal. The critique of nominalism offered in defense of sense-realism is taken up under the umbrella of the phenomenological method. Beginning from an attitude of neutrality regarding the question of whether or not definitions signify what is real in theparticulars of sense-experience, the profound unreasonableness of nominalism is exhibited while the sense- realism of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas is shown to be the most reasonable account of the phenomena.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studia Gilsoniana, 2018
Synthesizing Thomism and phenomenology, this paper compares the kind of reflective thinking and w... more Synthesizing Thomism and phenomenology, this paper compares the kind of reflective thinking and willing that goes on in penitential acts to Edmund Husserl’s method of the phenomenological ἐποχή (epoche). Analyzing penance up through the act of contrition, it first shows it to have three primary acts: (1) the examination of conscience, (2) the reordering of the will and (3) the resolve not to sin again in regret. After presenting this Thomistic conception of contrition in detail, it then focuses on the essence of Husserl’s ἐποχή as a method intended to “suspend” certain beliefs in order to discover the truth about knowledge. In conclusion, it shows that a particular form of the ἐποχή—a penitential ἐποχή—must be employed in these three penitential acts so that a disposition of grace may be made present in the penitent.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Dissertation by Daniel Wagner
φύσις καί τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀγαθόν: The Aristotelian Foundations of the Human Good, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Teaching Documents by Daniel Wagner
The age of modern philosophy—erupting in the seventeenth and crumbling in the twenty-first—may be... more The age of modern philosophy—erupting in the seventeenth and crumbling in the twenty-first—may be justly characterized as an age of crude ruptures: dividing mind from body, nature from culture, truth from meaning, and the self from the other. To look around the world today, one sees polarized divides throughout culture. But these divides begin not in mere practical disagreement, but from a speculative fragmentation wrought by the faults which run throughout modern philosophical thought.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Daniel Wagner
Articles by Daniel Wagner
Dissertation by Daniel Wagner
Teaching Documents by Daniel Wagner